If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers.

The evidence concerning Chapman is clear as well. Dr. Phillips testified at inquest, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, Friday, 14 September, 1888:

The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen.

Comment

Was Martha Tabram murdered by a soldier or soldiers? Was she a Ripper victim? The intelligent answer to both seems to be 'perhaps'.

And 'perhaps' has a twin brother: 'perhaps not'.

I couldn't agree more.

The thing is, Martha Tabram, was considered a JtR victim by several investigators throughout. It was Macnaghten who promoted the C5, but he came on the scene later and wasn't on the police force at the time. Anderson and Abberline seem to think Tabram the work of JtR. Walter Dew also.

Bona fide canonical and then some.

Comment

Can I ask the people who doubt strangulation in Martha and the C5 how they think he was able to overcome the victims so quickly and silently?
No gunshots, sign of poisoning, stabbed through the heart, hit on the back of the head with a cosh etc. Without going through the notes not much sign of blood splatter if the throat was cut well still alive. To me, there is evidence of at least some asphyxiation in Martha, Polly, Annie and Liz. And with Kate and especially Mary with the extensive mutilation it is difficult to say. It is not a case of following a theory it is a case at looking at the facts. Prostitute murdered in the night with signs of strangulation and then being attacked brutally with a knife in the heart of a district where other similar murders occurred in time and place. The only other slightly credible theory is a soldier [or two]. And what evidence is there for that? A wound which may or may not have been caused by a bayonet, a soldier who was hanging around nearby who talked to a police officer [master criminal there] on a night when a lot of soldiers were given the night off [bank holiday], and a totally discredited witness in Pearly poll. On the balance of evidence I know which theory I prefer.

Comment

Can I ask the people who doubt strangulation in Martha and the C5 how they think he was able to overcome the victims so quickly and silently?

Could I ask, respectfully, why anyone should think that Jack the Ripper was the only person capable of quickly and silently overcoming his victims?

If indeed they were dispatched silently. Just because nobody noticed or reported hearing anything doesn't mean that no sounds were made, and there's some evidence that at three victims - Chapman, Stride and Kelly - may have sounded their own death-knells. In either instance, the fact that sounds were heard might have something to do with the fact we had witnesses who were not only awake, but easily within earshot.

Comment

Can I ask the people who doubt strangulation in Martha and the C5 how they think he was able to overcome the victims so quickly and silently?
No gunshots, sign of poisoning, stabbed through the heart, hit on the back of the head with a cosh etc. Without going through the notes not much sign of blood splatter if the throat was cut well still alive. To me, there is evidence of at least some asphyxiation in Martha, Polly, Annie and Liz. And with Kate and especially Mary with the extensive mutilation it is difficult to say. It is not a case of following a theory it is a case at looking at the facts. Prostitute murdered in the night with signs of strangulation and then being attacked brutally with a knife in the heart of a district where other similar murders occurred in time and place. The only other slightly credible theory is a soldier [or two]. And what evidence is there for that? A wound which may or may not have been caused by a bayonet, a soldier who was hanging around nearby who talked to a police officer [master criminal there] on a night when a lot of soldiers were given the night off [bank holiday], and a totally discredited witness in Pearly poll. On the balance of evidence I know which theory I prefer.

There is more evidence of Martha having had a blow to the head than that she was strangled. From the the man who performed the autopsy on her vs that eminent scientific journal, the IPN. On the balance of evidence I would suggest she was subdued by being whacked on the head or having her head bashed against a wall or hard floor.